My doctor flat out refused to sign the Bill for Obamacare when it first came out because he didn't care for the idea of having some bureacrat
regulate what treatments and medications patients obtained for their illnesses and conditions.

You mean he'd rather the insurance companies regulate what treatments and medications patients receive?

If Ron Paul was in charge, he'd let the state bureaucrats regulate what treatments and medications patients receive. You think that's much better?
At least Obama is trying to take responsibility for making sure all Americans have available and affordable healthcare, no matter what state they live
in.

According to 'Obamacare' it's illegal, right now, to deny someone insurance due to a pre-existing condition. The portion you're citing is only in
effect until 2014. By that time, the law assumes that states have set up their respective exchanges and by 2015 most people should be eligible for
their healthcare subsidies in order to afford health insurance.

A major problem arising right now is that most states are fighting the bill in the supreme court and refusing to set up their health care exchanges,
leaving people unable to afford insurance or qualify for medicaid to fend for themselves until the SCOTUS makes a decision later this month.

They certainly didn't set up this system....your arguments are all false.....not wanting government in healthcare decisions does not make you an
anarchist...that's a childish remark and there are other choices than government or insurance companies.....if you know so much about me you know I
believe in the undoing of insurance companies also.

It should be between your dr and you.....and people should have to pay for their healthcare needs...just like you take care of your house or
car....catastrophic coverage only.

Your silly black and white false arguments don't wash with me....

The founders never intended the government to make your decisions for you......what constitution are you reading? the original or the progressively
warped post 1900 one?

What WERE those Founding Fathers thinking of when they set up a system of 'gooberment', anyway?

the Founding Fathers never set up a
"system of government".
what they did establish was a system of restricting government.
in a society of self-governed people, restricting government was/is a necessity.

those who do not grasp this simple principle cannot possibly comprehend the subsequent follies we've already endured or those proposed by this
nonsense called Obamacare.

Originally posted by timetothink
.not wanting government in healthcare decisions does not make you an anarchist...that's a childish remark and there are other choices than
government or insurance companies.....

Indeed it's not. Of course, what you said was:

"They think government , has their best interests at heart? They care about your welfare and health?? For reals?"

Which implies you think the private sector can be trusted to care about our health and welfare. Which is pretty laughable.

Also, ever read the preamble of the Constitution that says the government should "promote the general Welfare"?

According to 'Obamacare' it's illegal, right now, to deny someone insurance due to a pre-existing condition. The portion you're citing is only in
effect until 2014. By that time, the law assumes that states have set up their respective exchanges and by 2015 most people should be eligible for
their healthcare subsidies in order to afford health insurance.

A major problem arising right now is that most states are fighting the bill in the supreme court and refusing to set up their health care exchanges,
leaving people unable to afford insurance or qualify for medicaid to fend for themselves until the SCOTUS makes a decision later this month.

Some states are fighting it and some already had a pool program in place.

We need to find a list showing states fighting and states already providing.

Originally posted by Honor93
the Founding Fathers never set up a "system of government".

what they did establish was a system of restricting government.

in a society of self-governed people, restricting government was/is a necessity.

Your understanding of US politics and history, nt to mention the definition of the term 'government' is laughable

Lulz.What the Founding Fathers did was establish a form of Government. Perhaps you just dont know what a 'government" is. "Government, refers to
the legislators, administrators, and arbitrators in the administrative bureaucracy who control a state at a given time, and to the system of
government by which they are organized". The US Constitution establishes a system of Government.

Furthermore, the US at the time of the signing of the Constitution was not a society of 'self-governed people'.

Twenty six states are fighting the law and that's about how many haven't bothered to try to enact their exchanges. About 12 states have enacted
their exchanges and the remaining are still debating the issue.

Originally posted by Honor93
the Founding Fathers never set up a "system of government".

what they did establish was a system of restricting government.

in a society of self-governed people, restricting government was/is a necessity.

Your understanding of US politics and history, nt to mention the definition of the term 'government' is laughable

Lulz.What the Founding Fathers did was establish a form of Government. Perhaps you just dont know what a 'government" is. "Government, refers to the
legislators, administrators, and arbitrators in the administrative bureaucracy who control a state at a given time, and to the system of government by
which they are organized". The US Constitution establishes a system of Government.

Furthermore, the US at the time of the signing of the Constitution was not a society of 'self-governed people'.

laugh all you want, try reading the Federalist papers and get back to me.
there were already 13 governments well-established and fully functioning.
the FFs sought to consolidate the events already occuring around them.

Your inability to absorb or understand the concept is not my problem but thanks for trying to make it so

and no, the US Constitution specifically restricts government, it does not establish what already exists.

the US at the time of the signing of the Constitution was not a society of 'self-governed people'.

correct, there was no such thing
as the US until the Constitution was ratified and implemented.
however, there was a Confederation, there were Articles governing said Confederation and there were multiple governments actively operating long
before the Constitution was even conceived or discussed as a possibility.
so yes, there were plenty of "self-governing" entities before the Constitution, they were called Colonies.

edit to add: Obamacare has nothing to do with self-governing.
under Obamacare, patients do not govern their own healthcare, their ability to afford it or their access to it.
under Obamacare, drs do not govern your healthcare, their willingness to discount it or their ability to make it more accessible ... how is this
program even resemblant of any form of "self-governing"?

Twenty six states are fighting the law and that's about how many haven't bothered to try to enact their exchanges. About 12 states have enacted
their exchanges and the remaining are still debating the issue.

No one is playing roulette. No one is gambling. Thise without healthcare don't have it because they can't afford it. It has absolutely nothing to
do with being cheap or gambling on their life. Insurance company greed is the problem. How on Earth is forcing every citizen to pay them premiums
going to help the problem?

I really don't understand. I see the need for an overhaul myself. I like the idea of all citizens having healthcare too. But when you force them
to have it under under the xisting system (few tweaks here and there to entice), you're making the problem worse.

Except that if you can't afford it, then they will help you pay for it.

Premium Subsidies Households with incomes below 400 percent and above 133 percent of the federal poverty line (FPL) who are enrolled in insurance
plans offered through the exchanges are eligible for premium assistance financed by the federal government (Medicaid will cover families with incomes
below 133 percent of FPL). In 2010, the FPL is $22,050 for family of four. The new law establishes a sliding scale of assistance based on limitations
on required family contributions to the cost of coverage. For instance, at 150 percent of FPL in 2014, ObamaCare limits the amount that such
households must contribute toward their health insurance premium to 4 percent of their annual income. At 400 percent of the FPL, households must
contribute 9.5 percent of their income toward insurance premiums. Whatever portion of the total health insurance premium for their coverage is not
paid by these households is covered by the new federal premium assistance program.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.